I Boldly Went Where I'd Never Gone Before, And I Liked It

Yes, geeks everywhere can go ahead and pick their jaws up off of the floor. Until last weekend, I had never in my life seen one bit of Star Trek. Not one of the movies. Not one episode of any of the TV shows. Sure, I had a pop-culture awareness of who Kirk, Spock, and the rest were, but that was about it. I've made my own trilogy of Star Wars spoofs, I could quote you every line from The Lord of the Rings, and the largest section on my bookshelf after theology books is my collection of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. My Star Trek naivete really is the one black mark on my geek resume. I took the first step to remedying that when a couple from church, Heather and I went to see J.J. Abram's Trek reboot after hearing a ton of positive buzz - and I can say that the buzz is quite well-deserved.

The movie follows the crew of the Enterprise as they're all young bucks just out of the Starfleet academy. The movie's villain, rogue Romulan captain Nero (Eric Bana), has traveled back through time to avenge the future destruction of his homeworld, for which he blames Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy in his aged version). The enterprise crew, including a feuding brash, rebellious Kirk (Chris Pine) and the calm, meticulous Spock (Zachary Quinto), must stop him from vengefully wiping out not only Vulcan, but Earth as well. Despite the talk of time travel and alternate-realities (which I'm beginning to think Abrams is obsessed with), the plot is easy to follow even for the uninitiated - neither Heather or I ever felt lost - and I'm told by my Trek-loving friends that it also serves as an ingenious way to launch a new franchise without stomping on Trek's long history and continuity.

Abrams' Trek continues the recent run of excellent reboots of aging film franchises, following in the footsteps of Batman Begins and Casino Royale. I absolutely loved both of those films, and Star Trek is worthy of mention right alongside them. While I've though for a while that Abrams is one of the best concept guys in the entertainment business (for evidence see Cloverfield and TV's Lost and Fringe), I've not yet been impressed with his work as a director (Mission: Impossible III). That changed in a big way with this movie. Abrams gives the film a brisk, exciting pace, a sense of humor that doesn't elicit eye-rolls, and tells his story in a way that alienates neither newcomers or old fans. The characters feel very human and are quite relatable, doubtlessly a big reason that this movie has appealed to the masses who are often turned off by the stoic nature of space opera. Much of the film's energy is due in large part to its stellar cast. Pine and Quinto are excellent together in the leads, Bana is suitably threatening as the villain, and their supporting cast gives a host of fine performances, with Karl Urban's Bones McCoy and Simon Pegg's Scotty especially endearing. This is about as good of a summer film as you'll find, and I can't wait to see where they take the sequels that are surely coming given the movie's fantastic box-office haul. Whether you're fluent in Klingon or a Trek-newbie like me, go catch this one before it finishes its theatrical run. I promise you won't be disappointed. We certainly weren't. - **** (out of 4)

Star Trek is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence and brief sexual content.

Friday's Featured Film - 6/26/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Munich

What does revenge cost? What does it do to a man to take another man’s life, even if it was justified? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? Perhaps no film has explored these questions recently quite so thoroughly and devastatingly as Steven Spielberg’s 2005 Best Picture nominee Munich. Heather and I saw the movie last weekend with her parents and sister, and I found it difficult to watch – but in a positive sense. This is a film that examines a bloody and nasty conflict, but in its focus shifts attention away from socio-political debate and toward the realities of the individuals most involved. The result is a film that inevitably causes the viewer to look inward, pondering what it would be like in the shoes of these men who sought revenge at the request of their government but at the peril of their souls.

The film follows the events of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, in which Palestinian terrorists took hostage and eventually killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana) is an Israeli intelligence agent approached by his superiors to lead an off-the-books mission. He and a team of four others will track down and kill 11 men believed to have had a part in planning the Munich massacre. The men move through Europe eliminating their targets, all the while finding that their mission’s external dangers are exceeded by its personal toll.

Since Munich’s story is an intensely personal one, the strength of the five actors who make up the squad is of the utmost importance, and the cast delivers tremendously. Bana gives a terrific performance, especially as the film progresses and his leadership becomes ever weightier. Daniel Craig’s Steve is a great contrast, becoming ever more set in his hatred for their enemies and his determination to carry out vengeance. Ciaran Hinds is very engaging as the mysterious Carl, Mathieu Kassovitz plays the part of the team's conscience as Robert, and Hanns Zischler’s Hans is the weakest of the group, though it’s more due to a shallower character than an inferior performance. The film's best moments come as we watch this group morph from a group of committed idealists to men struggling for their physical and emotional survival. Bana in particular portrays a brutally honest look into the human toll of revenge. As his bloody task is contrasted with his wife and new baby back home, we begin to see the stark effects of his every action. Spielberg came under much scrutiny from both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli debate, and I think that indicates that he did what he set out to do - make a movie that avoids political trappings and explores the much more intimate and human aspect of the war. I give this one a big recommendation, but also with big reservations. This is no popcorn flick, so if you're expecting a light Spielberg action film, this probably isn't for you. Also, this is a very graphic film, with some brutal and tough-to-swallow violence as well as some graphic nudity (though, it isn't particularly sexual in context). If those two factors will be a deal-breaker for you, I'd urge you to stay away. This is definitely much closer to Schindler's List than any of Spielberg's other films. However, if you're in the mood for a film that will make you think about - and feel - the human side of war, this is a great film that's well-deserving of the praise it received at awards season. - **** (out of 4)

Munich is rated R for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language.

Friday's Featured Film - 6/19/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Marley & Me

My wife is a big-time dog person. I’m more the take-em-or-leave-em type. So, when we rented the Owen Wilson/Jennifer Aniston dog dramedy Marley & Me last weekend, suffice it to say that she was a little more excited than I was. I wasn’t dreading the movie; I just wasn’t expecting a whole lot from it. I figured it would be formulaic and cute with a heartstring-tugging ending. I figured it would be pretty much like every other dog movie that’s ever been made. I was right on all counts. What I didn’t anticipate was that in spite of its blatant predictability, it’s actually pretty good.

The movie is actually based on newspaper columnist John Grogan’s autobiographical book of the same name (so it’s hard to get too upset at the formulaic nature, since most of this stuff really happened). Wilson and Aniston star as Grogan and his new bride Jenny as they leave Michigan to pursue new jobs at newspapers in South Florida and start their life as a family. The two of them adopt a yellow lab puppy named Marley, who very quickly shows his colors as “the world’s worst dog.” The film follows the Grogans as jobs change, their family grows, and their marriage is challenged – with Marley there every step of the way, for better or for worse.

If that plot setup seems a little thin, it is – and it’s actually one of the movie’s strong points. The film finds its drama in the ins-and-outs of daily life and the challenges and joys of marriage and family. There’s no contrived, over-the-top antagonist, no implausible crisis to face. Screenwriters Scott Frank and Don Roos and director David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada) realize that there’s plenty of drama in day-to-day life to sustain an interesting film without resorting to cheap cinematic tricks. Wilson and Aniston are both strong in the lead roles, contributing to a movie that is one of the more refreshingly honest, realistic, and moving depictions of family life I’ve seen on screen in recent memory. This is a film that’s not deprecating marriage and children, but showing the family as something of high value that is worth the many sacrifices life demands to sustain and nurture it. With my little girl about to turn 1 tomorrow, perhaps my heart was a little more tuned to what amazing blessings marriage and family are, but I found the film genuinely moving. The standard “bad-dog” gags are played - but not overplayed - and many of the film’s scenes can be predicted before the previous scene even finishes. As I said, it’s formulaic, and for that reason I didn’t really want to like it, yet I did, in spite of itself. So guys, if your wife wants to rent Marley & Me this weekend, rest easy – this is no vapid chick flick, and it’s certainly not a film you have to dread seeing. In fact, in a culture that sees marriage as a joke and children as a hindrance to personal freedom, it’s actually rather refreshing. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

Marley & Me is rated PG for thematic material, some suggestive content and language.

Short But Very Sweet

One decision I enjoy getting to make every year as a youth pastor is what book to buy as a gift from the church to my graduating seniors. Last year, I really enjoyed Alex and Brett Harris' Do Hard Things, and I'd actually given thought to getting it again for my 3 grads this year. In hindsight, I'm very glad that Tim Keller's The Prodigal God caught my eye instead. Though it was a quick read, don't let that fool you as to the depth of spiritual insight contained within. This is one of the best-written books I've read in some time in terms of making excellent use of every word.

The book is an examination of Jesus' parable from Luke 15:11-32, commonly called the parable of the Prodigal Son. Keller seeks to examine the parable to see what it teaches us about the nature of the Christian faith, and he exposes a parable that reads very differently than most people have thought. Rather than focusing on the wayward son, Keller points out that the focus of the story is actually the father, who represents God to us. Also, he spends a large amount of time examining the older brother in the story, who is actually cast in worse light than the younger brother. This was especially helpful to me, pointing out how dangerously often my "obedience" to God is really self-centeredness in clever disguise. In the end, though, the lasting impact of the book is a picture of a father who seeks to reconcile both sons to himself and does so at great personal cost. This is the inspiriation for the book's title - rather than meaning "wayward" as is often assumed, "prodigal" actually means "to spend recklessly, to spend all that one has." Keller paints us a picture of a God who is the ultimate prodigal, who takes the debt of sin on himself and who graciously and lovingly calls both individualistic, rebellious "younger brothers" and self-righteous, self-seeking "elder brothers" to repentance.

I really cannot recommend this book strongly enough. Keller writes extremely well and makes his points with clarity and power. Last night, I was talking with two of my grads and they were both gushing over the book. One of my guys was nearly finished with it after just 3 days, adding that he'd never finished a book in a week in his life. Whether you're a high school senior or a senior citizen, this is a book that you'll find edifying, enlightening, and encouraging. Put it at the top of your summer reading list.

Friday's Featured Film - 6/12/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Back in 2005, I was thrilled when director Andrew Adamson (Shrek) filmed a tremendous adaptation of C.S. Lewis’s classic The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The film was one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations I’d ever seen, and a great movie. Last year, the second film in the Narnia series, Prince Caspian, was released. Heather and I never made it to the theater to see it, but we caught up with it last week on Blu-ray, and while it wasn’t as good as the first (and to be honest, the source material isn’t as good either), it was still an entertaining entry in the series.

Caspian, which is actually the fourth book in Lewis’ Chronicles (Lion is actually #2), picks up with the Pevensie kids (Williams Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, and Georgie Henley) back in London and having trouble readjusting to life as schoolkids after their long lives as kings and queens in Narnia. Suddenly, they are summoned back to Narnia, only to find that well over a thousand years have passed in the magical land. Their castle lies in ruins, a foreign power has invaded and occupied the land, and the rightful heir to the throne, Prince Caspian X (Ben Barnes) is on the run from his ruthless uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). After discovering exiled Narnian creatures hiding in the forest, Caspian joins with them and summons the Pevensies back to the land, seeking to overthrow their oppressors and return Narnia to peace. Together, they seek the long-absent Aslan and fight for the future of Narnia.

The movie is a little slow out of the gate, with the story taking a while longer to get rolling than it did in Lion. Part of this is due to the fact that Caspian is hardly the strongest Lewis novel (it was chosen for the second film because of the required age of the kid actors), and I imagine it took a fair amount of work to adapt the screenplay into something that played well onscreen. Once all the characters come together, though, the film finds its stride and its second half is noticeably stronger than its first. I had heard a lot of buzz going in about the drastic changes made to the story for the film, but I must say, I didn’t find anything that was so out of spirit with the book that it negatively affected the movie for me. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Caspian is hardly my favorite Narnia tale, so I don’t mind seeing a couple tweaks here or there. The action scenes were well shot, and it’s apparent that Adamson feels more comfortable in the director’s chair in his second outing than he did for his first. The cast is serviceable, but nobody (including Barnes in the titular role) turns in a performance that you’ll remember down the road. As for the film’s allegorical power, those looking for the vivid Christian imagery of the first film will still find it here, though it’s not nearly as prevalent. In the end, this is a good film but it’s not one that I think I’ll have the desire to re-watch quite as much as Lion. Adamson and company took one of Lewis’ weaker offerings and made a film that, while not great, is a decent entry in the series and paves the way for new director Michael Apted (The World is Not Enough, Amazing Grace) to take the reigns for the next installment (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader). If you haven’t already, give Caspian a rental. It’s well worth the time. - *** (out of 4)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is rated PG for epic battle action and violence.

An Unfulfilling Salvation

After making Terminator 2: Judgment Day my featured movie last week, Heather and I decided to go see the fourth movie in the franchise, Terminator Salvation, Saturday night. After the recent Terminator TV show was cancelled before it could really mine out some new territory, we were excited to see the direction that this new movie (reportedly the first in a new trilogy) took the Terminator story. The TV show had allayed my fears that a good Terminator movie couldn’t happen without Arnold, but I was still nervous about one of my least favorite directors (McG of Charlie’s Angels fame) taking on one of my famous franchises. In the end, McG proved capable, and the film was entertaining, but not even James Cameron could have elevated this script to anything beyond an mildly enjoyable popcorn movie.

The movie is the first in the franchise to take place in the future during mankind’s war with Skynet. Now and adult and a leader in the resistance, John Connor (Christian Bale) is viewed by some as a savior and some as an over-eager idealist. On a raid of a Skynet facility, he uncovers the revelation that Skynet has begun taking prisoners and experimenting on human tissue in preparation for the new T-800 Terminators. As he and the other resistance commanders plot their next move, a man named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), whose last memory is of being executed on death row, emerges from a destroyed Skynet lab. Seeking to figure out what has happened to the world and to him, he happens upon Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), a teenager surviving in now-desolate Los Angeles. Over the course of the film, these three cross paths and seek to take the fight to Skynet in hopes of making peace with their pasts or futures (and in Terminator mythology, aren’t they the same thing?).

I can say right off the bat that my biggest fear, McG’s directing ability, was put to rest. He actually proves himself capable, handling the film reasonably well, showing a great knack for how to stage an entertaining action scene, and even making some of the movie’s quieter moments (there aren’t many) effective. The problem with the movie lies with the script. I don’t want to give too much away, but in the end, the story doesn’t really go much of anywhere. Much has been made of the original ending, which was dropped after it was leaked online. I can’t say how it would have played onscreen, but as a concept at least it would have pushed the Terminator narrative somewhere. As it stands, there really doesn’t seem to be any reason to make this movie save to set up further sequels. It just couldn’t seem to find its identity. We don’t get much of a window into John Connor here, and his wife (Bryce Dallas-Howard) is pretty much a throwaway character, but Marcus is fascinating to watch. The supporting cast ranges from decent (Yelchin and Moon Bloodgood) to dull (Common), to why-are-you-in-this-movie (Jadagrace Berry), and I suspect that it’s not so much because of the ability of the actors as it is the material they have to work with. In the end, that seems to be the best summary of the movie – a cast and crew doing the best they can with a flimsy premise. I realize that my review has sounded pretty negative, and I’m actually going to surprise you by giving this a mild recommendation. I was never bored by it, it held my interest until its all-too-abrupt end, and it provided its fair share of exciting moments (including a cameo from you-know-who). As an action movie fan, I liked it. However, as a fan of the Terminator series, which has always been good sci-fi and more than just explosions and computer effects, I found it the weakest installment by far and a disappointment – and that sentiment grows the more that I think about it. - **1/2 (out of 4)

Terminator Salvation is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.

Friday's Featured Film - 6/5/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

A couple weeks ago, the Terminator franchise re-launched with the much-publicized Terminator Salvation, starring Christian Bale as John Connor as he wages the future war with the machines. After the first three films and the (sadly) cancelled TV series, Heather and I are big Terminator fans and are excited to see the series’ new direction. For this week’s featured film, I figured I’d point those of you who have never experienced the Terminator saga to it’s best volume, 1991’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day. T2 is a terrific sci-fi film, and more accessible than the original in my opinion. If you’re looking for an entry point into Terminator, then it’s the place to start.

In the first film, Skynet, the self-aware supercomputer that seeks to annihilate humanity, has sent a cyborg called a Terminator back in time to kill Sarah Connor, a woman who will become the mother of John Connor, the future leader of humanity’s resistance against the machines. John sent a protector back for his mom, a soldier named Kyle Reece, who defended her against the Terminator and destroyed it, while also becoming John’s father (don’t think about that too hard) before being killed. T2 takes place 15 years later, with Sarah (Linda Hamilton) now confined to a mental hospital because of her paranoia (so others think) about the future, and John (Edward Furlong) as a rebellious 11-year old living with foster parents. Skynet has sent another Terminator (Robert Patrick) back to kill young John, but this time future-John has sent a new protector back as well – a reprogrammed Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), the same model (though not the same actual machine) that hunted them in the first film. Together, John and the Terminator seek to stay alive, rescue Sarah, and stop Skynet from ever being created.

This is the last Terminator film to be directed by James Cameron (The Abyss, Aliens, Titanic), and his masterful touch is evident. While the movie has its fair share of action (which holds up amazingly well even 18 years later), don’t expect a thin plot or bland characters. This is an epic sci-fi saga, and one with surprisingly more heart and brain than you probably expect. The premise (save for the time-travel paradoxes that you’ve just got to go with) is incredibly cool, the script is expertly crafted and it leads to a movie that is exciting and well-paced, and the finished product is a blast to behold. Say what you will about Ahnold’s acting ability, but this is his defining role for a reason, and he’s great to watch. Hamilton is excellent as a woman teetering on the edge of sanity, Patrick is just plain creepy as the liquid metal T-1000 (which is a landmark in the history of CGI special effects), and while Furlong isn’t an award-winner by any stretch, he’s serviceable as kid-actors go. This is a landmark sci-fi film, a landmark action film, and perhaps the movie world’s first true blockbuster. If you haven’t seen it, go rent it before you head out to see Salvation and perhaps you’ll understand why the new film is getting so much hype. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day is rated R for strong sci-fi action and violence, and for language.

Friday's Featured Film - 5/29/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

The DaVinci Code

About two years ago, everyone was talking about this little book called The DaVinci Code. It seemed like everyone you met was either hailing it as the greatest book ever or railing against it as the tome of antichrist himself. So, with a movie based on the book about to come out, I decided that if I was going to have an opinion about it, I probably ought to read it and see what all the fuss was about. It was a great novel, an engaging read full of twists and turns that kept me gripped until I’d finished it in just a few days. As for the controversy, well, let’s just say that as good as the book was from a narrative standpoint, it was just as bad from a historical standpoint. In the end, though, it left my wife and I interested in seeing the film, especially with Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, and director Ron Howard attached. Our interest waned when the movie opened to surprisingly subpar reviews, but with the prequel/sequel film Angels & Demons opening this month, we finally decided to give DaVinci a whirl last night. What we found was a movie that, while not ultimately a bad film, just didn’t capture everything that worked about the book.

Tom Hanks stars as Dr. Robert Langdon, a professor of religious symbology at Harvard. While in Paris giving a speech, Langdon is approached by the police. The curator at The Louvre, an acquaintance whom he was supposed to meet for lunch that afternoon, had turned up mysteriously murdered in the museum itself. As Langdon arrives at the scene, he quickly realizes, thanks to the curator’s granddaughter, officer Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), that he is not being called in as a consultant, but as a suspect. Believing that her grandfather gave her his name to help crack the puzzle and find his killer, Sophie helps Langdon escape custody and the two begin a quest that will eventually lead them on a hunt for the fabled Holy Grail. However, (and I’m going to assume here that the cat’s out of the bag for just about everyone, so spoiler warning) after a conversation with one of Langdon’s old colleagues (Ian McKellen), they discover a shocking secret – the grail is not a cup, but the body of Mary Magdalene, who was actually Jesus’ wife and bore his daughter, starting a royal bloodline that continues to this day, protected by a secret society called the Priory of Sion and hunted ruthlessly by the Vatican.

Obviously, one can understand why that plotline would irk those of us who have placed our faith and trust in the Jesus of Scripture. Let me assure you, you’ve got nothing to fear here. The history cobbled together to form this conspiracy theory is at times laughable, a mishmash of exposed fraud, half-truth, fantastical interpretation of classical art, and just plain false details of church history. For one who claims a very factual backdrop for his novel, Brown is seriously lacking credibility as a historian. So really, the novel and the movie work on the fantasy-quest level of something like an Indiana Jones or National Treasure film, though unfortunately it doesn’t seem its own creator fully realizes that. So, taking it for the work of fiction that it is, it’s a well-crafted story, full of interesting characters, a solid pace, and a host of twists that will keep you guessing to the end. The problem with the film is that the story just isn’t as engaging visually as it is on the page. This isn’t an action-driven tale, but one where most of the “action” takes place in conversation and conspiracy, and it just doesn’t entirely work here. Though the adaptation is thus limited in its potential, Howard does a pretty good job at getting what he can out of it. I was never bored over the film’s nearly 2 ½ hour running time, a decent accomplishment considering that I already knew everything that was going to happen (and as best as I can recall, the film stuck to the book pretty faithfully). The story is well staged and paced, and it’s a testament to Brown’s narrative that his story remains engaging even in a medium it’s not entirely suited for. There are problems aplenty, though, none of them are too major. While McKellen turns in a great performance, Hanks just doesn’t really work in the title role. This is one of the first times I can ever recall him as coming off as wooden and stiff, but he does, and some key moments suffer for it. Some of the conversations that are heavy on the exposition side (I’m thinking in particular about the revelation at Teabing’s château of the big conspiracy) feel a bit forced and stilted, and they don’t flow quite as naturally as they did on the page. However, the story’s big plot twist in its final third is handled very well, and when the final credits rolled the film’s merits slightly outweighed its many problems for me. Its riding the strength of Brown’s narrative, but in the end that’s enough for a mildly compelling film. If you’re interested in checking out what the DaVinci fuss is all about, or want a pre-Angels & Demons primer, I’d suggest the book first – but if you’d rather spend a couple hours than a few days, the movie is serviceable and worth a rental. - *** (out of 4)

The DaVinci Code is rated PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content.

Friday's Featured Film - 5/8/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

A Mighty Wind

I'm a huge fan of Christopher Guest and company's series of "mockumentaries." For those of you who haven't seen the likes of Best in Show and Waiting For Guffman, Guest and a group of actors including Eugene Levy, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Fred Willard, Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, John Michael Higgins, Jennifer Coolidge, and others collabortae on largely improvised fake documentaries exploring an eccentric array of characters. A Mighty Wind, released in 2003, is their send-up of folk music - with all music written and performed by the cast. It's a favorite of mine, but it had been years since I'd seen it until Heather and I watched it with a couple friends last weekend. To put it simply, it was even funnier than I'd remembered.

The movie is set in motion with the death of legendary folk music producer Irving Steinbloom. As a tribute, his children arrange a concert that will reunite three of Steinbloom's most famous groups. There's the Folksmen (a Kingston Trio-type group), The New Main Street Singers (a clean-cut, color coordinated nuftet), and Mitch & Mickey (the romantic darlings of the folk-music world). The cameras follow the bands as they prepare for the concert, reflect on the past, and renew lost relationships.

The hilarity of Guest's movies often comes from just how real, yet at the same time ridiculous, the characters are. Everybody perfectly toes the line that divides silliness from sincerity, and the results are a moving that is incredibly funny but also surprisingly touching. The music is incredibly well done (I dare you to watch this film and not end up with at least one song stuck in your head for days), with irony and subtle humor sprinkled throughout. Most of the dialogue is improvised (Guest and Levy sketched out characters and a general outline and left the rest to their actors), giving the movie an incredibly real feel. Much like Rob Reiner's This Is Spinal Tap (and by the way, The Folksmen are portrayed by the same Spinal Tap trio of McKean, Guest, and Shearer), if you were to stumble upon this unknowingly you'd almost believe you were watching a real, if strange, documentary. It's a difficult movie to explain, and it may not be everybody's cup-o-tea, but I'd encourage you to give this one a shot this weekend. - **** (out of 4)

A Mighty wind is rated PG-13 for sex-related humor.

A Comprehensive Challenge

Though I've never been able to attend the Together For the Gospel conference, I listened to audio of all the messages from last year's edition and found them extremely challenging, convicting, and encouraging. I'd heard a couple of the messages from the 2006 conference, but not all of them, so I was excited recently to begin reading Preaching the Cross, a book written by the conference speakers that encapsulates the content of their messages. The book is not an exact transcript or reproduction of the sermons, but the content is very similar.

Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, John MacArthur, John Piper, and R.C Sproul each contribute a chapter, and all of them are quite helpful in their own right. The book is, as the title suggests, built around the centrality of Christ's atonement in preaching. Each writer's work is related to that theme, but each is very different in its focus - a fact that keeps the book fresh throughout and makes it a valuable tool in many different areas. My favorite chapters were likely Sproul's refelctions on the centrality of justification by faith, Duncan's insights on preaching Christ from the Old Testament, and Mahaney's hard-hitting call to a careful watch on one's own life. Content-wise, the book was excellent. My only complaint is that at times it reads like a book of sermons, with the unshakable feeling that to hear these messages preached would be far more engaging than simply reading them. I wouldn't call the writing flat, but the whole endeavor did at times betray itself as a book that is a byproduct of another medium. If you attended T4G 2006, you may want to take a pass on this one, since it will be largely summary and retread. However, if you're like me and did not attend, you'll find a lot of benefit in this book. The subject of the cross in preaching is covered from nearly every conceivable angle, a great help for the pastor who seeks to leave no stone unturned is his proclamation of Christ crucified - the only hope for our people and for us.

Friday's Featured Film - 4/17/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Arlington Road

When my wife and daughter were out of town a couple weekends ago, I got to watch several movies I've been wanting to see as I was hanging out with some friends. One was a movie that my good friend Josh Nelson has been recommending to me for months now - the 1999 thriller Arlington Road. It's a movie that had its ups and downs for me, and it's a tough one to review since much of the film's power (like many thrillers) is due to its twists and turns, but in the end is was an enjoyable, if flawed, bit of filmmaking.

The movie opens with Michael Faraday (Jeff Bridges), a widowed college professor and an expert on domestic terrorism, driving down his street and seeing an injured, bleeding boy, whom he takes to the hospital. As the boy recovers, Michael realizes that he is the son of his new neighbors, Oliver and Cheryl Lang (Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack). Michael, his girlfriend (Hope Davis) and son become fast friends with the Langs, with the two boys becoming increasingly close. However, things begin to unravel for Michael when a series of strange occurrences makes him think that there may be more to his new neighbors than meets the eye. He begins to dig into their past, and despite the skepticism of everyone around him, he believes he has come upon a terrifying secret.

For the first two-thirds of it's running time, Arlington Road is a well-crafted but unspectacular thriller. Director Mark Pellington (The Mothman Prophecies) does a great job of setting an unsettling tone from the opening scene, and he has a knack for making the ordinary feel quite uncomfortable. All the cast seem quite comfortable playing characters that feel very organic for them. Everything feels engaging, but not like anything we haven't seen before. In the movie's final act, two big shifts occur. One feels contrived and over-the-top at first but more understandable in hindsight, and the other is a shocking and incredibly gripping revelation that feels a little less impressive in hindsight. Without giving too much away, the mark of a great twist in a thriller is the ability to rewatch the film to see if the plot holds up. M. Night Shyamalan is the best at this I've seen. His twists are amazing, but they never cheat - in fact, repeat viewings of The Sixth Sense make me wonder how I never saw the twist coming to begin with. While Arlington Road's big twist was fantastic in the moment, the more I think about it the more I seriously doubt its plausibility would hold up under the careful eye of a second viewing. If you've watched the film more than once, let me know your thoughts in the comments (consider this a spoiler warning for the comments if you haven't seen the film). All-in-all, Arlington Road is an entertaining thriller, and while a second viewing may dampen the experience, for me the first was quite a ride. - *** (out of 4)

Arlington Road is rated R for violence and some language.

Friday's Featured Film 4/10/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Children of Men

Science fiction is a genre of nearly limitless possibilities. When most people hear sci-fi, they immediately think of ray guns, aliens and spaceships. However, what truly defines science fiction is the way in which it uses technology - both real and imagined - to explore ideas. Children of Men, a dystopian drama set twenty years in the future, does exactly that, exploring the frailty of human civilization and goodness by examining a world that has lost hope in it's entirety.

The film takes place in 2027 in a world where no children have been born in 18 years. Due to the unexplained global infertility pandemic, the youngest human being alive is 18 and the human race faces the grim reality that this generation will be its last. Society crumbles. Governments collapse into anarchy and chaos. Britian responds by forming a police state, tightly controlling its citizens and brutally cracking down on immigrats fleeing their ravaged homelands for England's relative peace. Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a former activist who has long since given up hope, is approached by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore), who continues on her activist work as the leader of the Fishes, a militant group fighting for equal rights for immigrants. She asks for his help in transporting Kee (Claire-Hope Ashley) an African refuge, to a port city where she can leave the country. Theo reluctantly agrees, and only later discovers what is truly at stake - Kee is pregnant, the last hope of humanity.

When the movie was released in 2006, I remember hearing a lot of buzz about its technical merit. The film received three Oscar nominations (cinematography, art direction, adapted screenplay) and I can more than see why. Emmanuel Lubezki's photography and Alfonzo Cuaron's directing combine to present an incredibly immersive world that feels all too real. Much of the impact of science fiction is determined by how deeply the audience buys the premise, and despite the incredible (and unexplained) plot device central to Children of Men, I almost instantly felt that it presented a world that could actually exist. Much has been made of several long single-shot sequences in the film, and they are indeed quite spectacular, and all the more impressive for the way that they naturally support the story rather than sticking out like an indulgent, showy stunt. The story explores a humanity devoid of hope, which is a humanity both broken and brutal. I have to imagine that this is what a world devoid of God's common grace would look like. Theo begins the movie in that boat, but over the course of the film we see his hope restored by Kee's child, which drives him to do incredible things. The messianic themes are unmistakable (the original novel was admittedly written as a Christian fable), and though the disturbing violence, harsh language, brief nudity, and bleak vision may not make the film palatable to some, the theme of redemption runs like an undercurrent through the whole thing. It's certainly worth your time. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

Children of Men is rated R for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity.

Friday's Featured Film - 4/3/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Slumdog Millionaire

At this year’s Academy Awards, Slumdog Millionaire - a small, independent film about a boy from the slums of India - came from seemingly nowhere to rule the night, taking home 8 awards including Best Picture. Given that fact, and the fact that everyone I talk to who has seen it raves about it, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. With my wife and daughter gone visiting family for the weekend, my friend Scott and I got together last night and rented the film, and it more than lived up to the hype.

Slumdog tells the story of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a boy from the slums of Mumbai who grows up and ends up on the Indian version of the game show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Against all odds, Jamal – despite having no formal education – is one question away from the grand prize. Believing that such a feat is impossible for a “slumdog,” Jamal is arrested on suspicion of fraud on the night before he will go on the air to answer the final question. As he is interrogated by the police, he tells the story of his life, and recounts the series of events that brought him to this place and gave him the answers to the questions.

The movie succeeds on virtually every level possible. The story is a modern fairytale, complete with love, loss, evil villains and an epic journey. The film is cleverly written and has a great sense of humor, a huge accomplishment given the weighty subject matter often involved. The ensemble cast gives fantastic performances, with the three main characters – Jamal, his brother Salim, and Latika, the girl he spends a lifetime searching for – being played by several young actors each as they grow up over the course of the film. The movie is visually stunning, beautifully photographing both the gritty, grimy slums and India’s beauty with equal skill. The music is fantastic striking exactly the right tone for every scene. The structure of the storytelling is incredibly engaging, alternating between Jamal’s appearance on the game show, his interrogation, and flashbacks of his life. Each scene perfectly sets the stage for the next. The themes the movie explores are fantastic, from the romance (which is one of the best on-screen love stories I’ve seen in a long while, moving largely because of its innocence and simplicity) to the underlying idea which begins with a question posed by the film during the opening moments. Everything about this movie felt right, not only about its parts but about the whole – a testimony to director Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Millions) and his ability to put together a fantastic film. Slumdog Millionaire carries about as much of an unreserved recommendation as I can give. This is a great movie, a true classic, and a fantastic achievement in storytelling. - **** (out of four)

Slumdog Millionaire is rated R for some violence, disturbing images, and language.

Friday's Featured Film - 3/20/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Australia

So, I'll admit it - I'm a sucker for epics. There's just something about a big, sweeping, dramatic film that instantly appeals to me. Movies with an epic feel rank among my all time favorites, from the historically significant (Saving Private Ryan) to the highly entertaining (Star Wars) to the deeply moving (The Last Samurai) and the all-of-the-above (The Lord of the Rings). That fact goes a long way to explaining my desire to see Australia - not the continent, but the dramatic epic set against the backdrop of the WWII-era northern outback. Heather and I, with her parents in town, rented it this week, and while it's not up there with the films I just mentioned, I still found it a very good movie.

Nicole Kidman stars as Lady Sarah Ashley, a wealthy British aristocrat who travels to Australia to get her husband to sell and close down his failing cattle ranch, Faraway Downs. She's met in Darwin by the rough-and-tumble outback cowboy Drover (Hugh Jackman), who has been hired by Mr. Ashley to bring his wife across the wilderness and to the ranch. Upon arriving, they find Mr. Ashley murdered, with an old Aboriginal shaman as the chief suspect. With the greedy cattle baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) threatening to snuff out his competition and treacherous ranchhand Neil Fletcher running Faraway Downs into the ground, Sarah suddenly finds herself wanting to save the ranch, it's people, and her livelihood by driving the cattle across the outback to market in the hopes of a rich army contract. With the help of Drover and the others - including a half-Aboriginal boy (Brandon Walters) Sarah takes under her wing - Sarah heads for Darwin with the prospect of a new start on the horizon and the danger of World War II looming.

Perhaps the easiest way to describe the vibe of Australia is to call it the Australian Gone With the Wind. Director Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!) set out to make it as such, and he largely succeeded. The film as a whole feels like a throwback to the filmmaking of a bygone era. The characters are strong archetypes and the plot dips unapolagetically into melodrama. There are times when it all feels a bit predictable, but it still feels right, because though the movie feels a bit like one you've seen before, it's still an enjoyable ride. Even the special effects serve the throwback vision. In the movie's first hour, I was a bit concerned that the effects, even something a simple as green-screen work, looked a bit off. Over time, though, it becomes clear that this look is intentional, echoing the days when a background was a matte painting, everyone knew it, and that was that. Rather than distracting from the visual mood of the film, the effects serve it beautifully. There's a lot to look at here, and watching it on Blu-ray the color all but leaped off the screen. It's a long ride (clocking in at about 2 hours, 40 minutes), but an enjoyable one. Look, I'm not going to pretend Australia's a great film. In fact, my above-stated biases probably made me like it more than most will. However, if you share my love for sweeping epics, this is more than worth a rental. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

Australia is rated PG-13 for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language.

A Primer on the New Atheism

Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Sam Harris. Daniel Dennett. You may or may not know the names, but chances are if you've had a discussion about God with an atheist in the last few years you know their ideas. Their bold and confident pronouncements against theistic belief - and largely Christian belief in particular - have topped bestseller lists and influenced countless people. Their ideas have become so pervasive among atheists that I can almost see them coming before a conversation begins. Their movement, often referred to as the "new atheism," is a cultural reality that any serious Christian needs to pay mind to. I recently finished a book that would be a good tool for someone who wants to do just that, Al Mohler's Atheism Remix.

The book is a short and quick read (I knocked it out in two sessions of about a half-hour each), and not spectacularly deep in its analysis, but it does an excellent job of introducing the reader to these men and their ideas. I'm pretty confident that a person who didn't know The God Delusion from War and Peace could read Mohler's book and emerge with a good foundational understanding at the ideas that the new atheists are advancing. One of Mohler's many talents is his ability to shape his communication to fit his audience (as anyone who's heard him preach at both a seminary convocation and a local church knows full well), and he presents his material here in a way that's not dumbed down but that also doesn't require a collegiate course in theology and philosophy. The book's accessibility makes it perfectly suited for the curious layman.

However, its accessibility is a limitation as well as a strength. For those who are already familiar with the new atheists, there's not a whole not of new material here. Mohler summarizes who they are and what they believe, then lays out the cultural consequences of their ideas (another great talent of his) and provides some basic responses from across the theological spectrum. Honestly, as much as I enjoyed the brief treatment of McGrath and Plantinga's responses, I would have liked to see more in depth analysis from Mohler himself. However, that's just simply not the aim of the book. I don't think he's trying to teach a graduate course on the matter, but to offer an introduction to a challenge that will have a huge impact on a generation of believers. If you'd like to understand and begin to think about the new atheism, Mohler's book would be a great place to start. If Dawkins, Hitchens, and the like are old-hat to you, then you'll probably want to take a pass here.

Are You a Respectable Sinner?

Over the weekend, I finished up Jerry Bridges' book Respectable Sins. Though the title may seem a bit odd (it was a great conversation starter with some of my co-workers), the premise of the book is much needed and incredibly useful. As the church today fails to miss a beat in condemning the grievous sins of society, Bridges challenges Christians to take a hard look at the less-obvious, but all-too-serious sins we tolerate in our own lives - our own "respectable" sins. Anger. Bitterness. Envy. Pride. Judgmentalism. You won't hear fiery polemics on these topics like you will about abortion, sexual immorality, or Godlessness, but they are alive and well in our lives, made all the more dangerous by their insidious nature. By treating them as "respectable," we often are blind to their devastating effects on our spiritual walks.

After introducing his premise in the opening chapters, Bridges examines several of these sins in detail chapter-by-chapter, examining how they often pop up in our lives and what we can do to battle against them. The book is incredibly disarming, showing self-styled "good people" like us just how much we still struggle with sin - and how easily we even give up the struggle and accept some sins as normal. This could be an incredibly depressing topic to explore if not for the pastoral heart that Bridges writes with. His lifetime of wisdom and gentle demeanor overflow out of every page. What could be a shattering condemnation instead has a hopeful tone, as Bridges constantly exhorts us to put our trust in the grace of Christ - both for our salvation and our sanctification. He is honest about his own failings, and offers extremely practical advice for overcoming the stumbling blocks of sin.

I can't recommend this one highly enough. It's a fairly quick and easy read that is well-suited to careful and prolonged study. One could easily read through the book in an afternoon, but I found I benefited greatly by spreading it out over a few weeks, deliberately meditating on each chapter. I think this book would be especially useful as part of a small-group study (in fact, the back of the book contains information about ordering study guides). There's not one person among us or in our churches that couldn't benefit from this challenging, yet ultimately encouraging book. Give it a read.

Friday's Featured Film - 3/13/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Matchstick Men

I was having a conversation the other day with a friend about Ridley Scott's 2003 film Matchstick Men that reminded me 1) just how great a film it is, and 2) that I really need to sit down and watch in again. The movie landed at #2 on my top 10 of 2003 (behind only The Return of the King) and is one of my all-time favorites. It's funny, charming, smart, and has some great things to say about what's important in life. I don't know when I'll get around to giving it another spin through my DVD player, but I recommend it to you wholeheartedly.

The movie tells the story of two con-men, Roy (Nicolas Cage) and Frank (Sam Rockwell). Roy is the crafty veteran, though hampered by a laundry list of phobias, ticks, and a nasty case of OCD. Frank is his partner and protege who, concerned for Roy's well being, suggests he sees a therapist. Over the course of therapy, Roy decides to confront his failed marriage a decade earlier. When reaching out to his ex-wife, Roy discovers he has a 14-year old daugher (Alison Lohman) he's never met. He seeks to reach out to her and enter her life as he and Frank plan their most ambitious con yet.

I'm a huge Nicolas Cage fan (though yes, he occasionally makes some really dumb career choices), and this movie features him at his absolute best. Roy is a character who is strange, likeable, sympathetic and distant all at the same time. I was really surprised his performance (and the film in general) wasn't more widely recognized. The rest of the cast is superb as well, especially Lohman, who injects Angela with just the right combination of rebelliousness and innocence. The writing is magnificent, and Scott pulls it all together into a seamless and riveting story (as he seemingly always does). What starts as a simple cat and mouse con game takes on an entirely new scope as Roy begins to see his daughter taking after him - and suddenly what was perfectly acceptable in his life seems problematic, if not downright dangerous. Matchstick Men is the type of film that starts off quick, witty, and light but pulls on your heart by the end - all without ever feeling plastic or contrived. No matter what your taste in movies, this is a film that I think has something to offer everyone. Give it a shot. - **** (out of 4)

Matchstick Men is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, violence, some sexual content and language.

Friday's Featured Film - 3/6/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

300

The new film The Watchmen is getting a lot of publicity this week. I’d never heard of the graphic novel until the trailers started showing up, and to be honest I’ve not really been hooked by what I’ve seen so far. However, I’m impressed by the stylish look of the clips I’ve seen, no doubt due in large part to director Zach Snyder. Snyder directed another film from a couple years ago with style to spare, the similarly-graphic-novel based action romp 300. For those who aren’t put off by some of the content, the movie is a beautifully crafted action film that’s certainly worth a look.

300 is a stylized retelling of the ancient battle of Thermopylae. Based on a graphic novel by the acclaimed Frank Miller (Sin City, The Spirit), the movie follows Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and his band of 300 elite warriors as they defend Greece from the onslaught of the Persian army, millions-strong and led by self-styled god Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). As his wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Heady, who fans of FOX’s Terminator TV show will instantly recognize), seeks diplomatic support for her husband and his men back home, the brave 300 seek to hold a narrow past against impossible odds.

Careful history, this is not. The movie is ultra-stylized, from the exaggerated and fantastic creatures to the beautiful CG landscapes to the amazing combat cinematography that splatters a generous amount of blood in every direction. On that front, let me point out straight away that this is not a film for the squeamish. The violence is graphic – stylized, but graphic. It’s not the brutal realism of Saving Private Ryan or Braveheart, but the slo-mo hacking of limbs and heads will simply be too much for some viewers. Between that reality and the film’s brief sexual scenes, the content may make this one a non-starter for some viewers. If not, this is a masterfully constructed, tightly-wound, and surprisingly artistic action film. When we first saw it, Heather and I both walked out of the theater buzzing about the film’s breathtaking visual sense. Color is used with purpose and precision, and the movie takes the style and cinematic tone of Sin City (which, for all it’s cinematographic wonder, was ultimately quite shallow) and pairs it with a far more engaging story. Butler is captivating as Leonidas, and he gets good work from a supporting cast that includes Lord of the Rings alum David Wenham and Shakespearean actor Vincent Regan (who fans of the movie Troy will recognize). All-in-all, this recommendation carries a strong warning for content, but if your interest is piqued by The Watchmen’s visual flair but you don’t want to shell out 10 bucks to see if the film delivers, head down to your local video store and check out a copy of 300 instead. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

300 is rated R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity.

Another Hidden Gem

Alright, if you still haven't visited NoiseTrade.com, then seriously, what are you waiting for? Go check the site out now. Right now. Stop reading my silly blog and go. Well, I suppose you could go after you finish reading this post. And maybe a couple others.

Derek Webb's brainchild is a fantastic way to discover indie artists of all shades, all for free. You can download any music from the site for free in exchange for emailing 5 friends, or if you'd rather you can pay whatever you think is fair for the music. It's a fantastic tool, both for artists and for fans. I blogged a while back about finding Rick Hopkins' excellent Where We Are and Where We Long to Be through the site, and last week I found another comparable jewel - Matt Papa's Your Kingdom Come.

After listening through the CD, Heather and I decided that Papa sounds like what you'd get if you threw U2, Queen, David Crowder Band, and strong theology (he has a doctrinal statement on his website, and a darn good one at that) in a blender. The music is an edgy pop-rock that for the most part maintains a fresh feel throughout, though there are a couple tracks that were a tad derivative for my taste. Some of the more subdued songs pack the biggest lyrical punch, including the beautiful "Hymn in C," the closing "I Will Trust in You My God," and the brutally prophetic "Woe to You" (which reminded me a lot of Derek Webb's early solo stuff). Papa is a treat vocally, evoking (strange as it seems) echoes of the late, great Freddie Mercury at times. Your Kingdom Come would be a great pickup if you bought it in a store, much more so thanks to the no-lose nature of NoiseTrade. Go take a look. Seriously, now you can go. Thanks for finishing the post.

Tearing Down the Shack

Everybody and their mother seems to be talking about The Shack lately. I've not read it myself, but my good friend Corey Reynolds just reviewed it, and he's got major concerns. And by the way, before any supporters of the book chalk this one up to just another reformed guy hating on the emergent crowd, Corey was a fan of the much-maligned Blue Like Jazz.